Talk:2nd Army Group (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 05:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I will review this article against the GA criteria over the next couple of days or so. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Overall, the article is in pretty good shape. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • in the lead, "It consisted of the 1st Army and 2nd Army" --> "It consisted of the 1st and 2nd Armies..."?
    • Done.
  • "and had several units with a significant proportion of Croat soldiers" --> can/should it be clarified why this was significant?
    • Becomes apparent later in the article, I'm not sure it necessary to introduce it here.
  • I think this quote should be attributed: with 2nd Army having "no combat importance at all"
    • Done.
  • "Savoia-Marchetti SM.75 transport aircraft formerly with the civilian airline MALERT" --> "Savoia-Marchetti SM.75 transport aircraft formerly belonging to the civilian airline MALERT"?
    • Done.
  • in the Notes section, is there a citation/footnote that could be added for Note a?
    • Added.
  • the article talks about the unit solely in terms of its existence in World War II, did it exist before this or after?
    • Basically, the Army Group didn't exist prior or after the invasion, and the subordinate armies only existed on paper (and in terms of a "Foost Army District") prior to mobilisation. So the life of the Army Group is what is shown here.
      • Sure, no worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose: clarity, conciseness, grammar and spelling, copyright): b (MoS: lead, layout, W2W, fiction and list):

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Happy with your changes. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Rupert! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries at all. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)